Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Though the Texas state legislature rejected his renomination as chairman of the Texas Board of Education, Don McLeroy is still spouting the creationist talking points. TFN has the details of a recent op-ed he wrote. He argued, for example:
Students will study evidence for common ancestry in the fossil record.Specifically, they will "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record."
The sequential pattern of fossils can be considered evidence for evolution, but the other patterns -- sudden appearance and stasis (staying the same) -- can be used to question evolution.
But in fact, they can't - at least not logically. Creationists, who are almost entirely free of the burdens of logic, use the facts of stasis and punctuation to argue against evolution but only by taking lots of Stephen Jay Gould quotes out of context and misrepresenting the nature of the fossil record and the expectations of evolution.
In the real world, stasis and punctuation is exactly what we should expect to see in the fossil record, which was the whole point of Gould and Eldredge's work on punctuated equilibrium. They took the findings of population genetics and applied it to the fossil record and asked what the fossil record should look like if most speciation events are allopatric in nature.
The answer to that question is that the fossil record should look exactly like it does if most speciation is allopatric. Allopatric speciation means that a new species splits off from a small subset of an ancestral population, one that gets cut off from the main ancestral stock so that it only reproduces within itself.
That is the dominant form of speciation and because it is, we would expect to see stasis in the larger population and the relatively sudden emergence of a new, closely related species in a small geographical area (for the obvious reason that we are much more likely to find fossils of the larger population stock than of the small, isolated population on the periphery). These are things that evolutionary biologists understand quite well and creationists ignore.
Texas students also will get to examine "how" evolutionary processes "created" the amazing complex assemblies that are found in the cell. They now are expected to "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell."
And in the hands of a competent science teacher, this is just fine. But in the hands of a teacher who doesn't really understand the science and has fallen under the spell of creationist material, it will lead to the introduction of canards like Behe's "irreducible complexity" into science classrooms. Never mind that there is not a single paper ever published in the scientific literature that confirms that argument. More importantly, never mind that the few articles published by creationists like Behe and Axe actually stand strongly against that argument.
Politics
Comments
You would think he would have read more stuff by now. I guess not. Oh well, he's only in charge of educating Texas. It's only one state, I guess. Always look at teh bright side.
Posted by: 386sx | June 12, 2009 10:22 AM
If only that were true. Unfortunately, as one of the largest purchasers of texbooks (2nd or third, IIRC) textbooks approved by Texas tend to become the defacto standard for the entire country - mostly because Texas has such an active textbook selection comittee. Back in the 60's the Texas schoolbook selection committee was dominated by the Gabler family, and very little has changed since that time. I recall a 60 minutes episode in which a couple of examples were described:
An American history textbook was rejected because its cover was RED.
A geography textbook was returned to the publisher with the demand that the comparison of the Northern American prarie with Siberia be removed.
And these are the kind of descisions that drive textbook publishing across the country...
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | June 12, 2009 10:39 AM
386sx, the problem is that Texas is single largest purchaser of textbooks. So when Texas starts to screw with standards of education, there is a large repercussion in regards to what is actually in ALL textbooks. Texas standards affect everyone who has a child in school.
The biggest problem is that Texas' governor (Rick 'The Hair' Perry) insists on getting Wingnut Wackaloons in positions of power such as McElroy. It took a lot of work by TFN and our state senators to remove McElroy as chair of the SBOE. Now, rumor control has it that he's going to nominate Cynthia Dunbar as chair (this is the same person who doesn't believe in the state education system-homeschools her own progeny and is of the "Obama is a foreign communist/muslim/alien/etc"). The battle for descent science and now social studies standards is far from over.
Posted by: Donna | June 12, 2009 10:43 AM
I thought that Texas was the largest purchaser of textbooks. Either way, Texas is screwing over the entire US (and I'm currently living in Texas-although I live in the Austin/San Antonio area aka The Sodom and Gommorrah of Texas).
Let me also apologize for not having enough coffee before posting. I need to correct the last sentence of my previous post. It should read "The battle for DECENT science and now social studies standards is far from over
Posted by: Donna | June 12, 2009 10:50 AM
Sounds like a good tag team. Rick "The Hair" Perry, and Don "The McHairless" McLeroy.
Don McLeroy looks nothing like a creationist, by the way. Can't judge a book by its cover I guess!
Posted by: 386sx | June 12, 2009 11:04 AM
A lot of creationism depends on a false dichotomy fallacy. McLeroy seems to think that if he can just make evolution look bad enough, that students will suddenly leap to the conclusion of creationism (unfortunately, he may be right).
Posted by: catgirl | June 12, 2009 11:12 AM
Posted by: Taz | June 12, 2009 11:16 AM
"If you generate points at random on the X-Y plane, you're not going to get evenly spaced points"
err... sure you are. do it enough and the entire plane will be covered with an even density.
Maybe you meant "If you generate points based on which animals lived where and were able to create fossils, . . "
Posted by: Kevin (nyc) | June 12, 2009 12:24 PM
Kevin - Do you mean if you generate enough points to fill the entire plane? I guess so - but I don't think it invalidates my point (no pun intended).
Posted by: Taz | June 12, 2009 12:35 PM
Anything worth saying, is worth saying on a tee shirt.
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 12, 2009 12:36 PM
LOL. Thanks for posting that - I saw these before when they had only about four, but I like some of the new ones - I might just have to get myself a timecube shirt...
Posted by: Brain Hertz | June 12, 2009 1:15 PM
So has Punkeq been accepted by most evolutionary biologists these days?
Posted by: ppnl | June 12, 2009 1:16 PM
Taz - tell me why you'll get clusters.
Posted by: Seth | June 12, 2009 1:22 PM
Seth - Because that's how randomness works. A distribution in which the points are evenly spaced is actually pretty specific. The vast majority of possible distributions will have clusters, so if you pick one at random the odds are you'll get one with clusters. I remember one of my stat profs used to say "randomness is indicated by a tendency to cluster".
Posted by: Taz | June 12, 2009 1:58 PM
Creationists: The only people in the world who can simultaneous say that 6000 years is the entire length of the universe and that 70 million years is "sudden"
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | June 12, 2009 2:21 PM
Iason - excellent. I'm adding to my witty quote list.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 12, 2009 3:17 PM
My main problem with this would be that they don't define "complexity" in the TEKS, nor provide the (normally college-level) tools to make sure complexity can be properly defined as ought be required for such discussion.
Fortunately, I don't live in Texass.
Posted by: abb3w | June 12, 2009 3:45 PM
So the fact that the opossum is the same now as it was in the late dinosaur period is, in McLeroy's mind, proof that no evolution is happening?
Some of these creationists just don't have a good grasp of dynamic processes, do they?
Posted by: Jon Lester | June 12, 2009 4:40 PM
catgirl:
That may be, but there's reason for creationists to fight even if no one accepts creationism by denying evolution: casting doubts on it helps people from being swayed by how well-attested and -supported a theory it is, especially current creationists. In other words, it's not about acquisition; it's about attrition.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | June 12, 2009 8:41 PM
Re: Randomness and clustering: Draw a grid with 100 numbered spaces, then use an online random number generator to choose 30 of those spaces, and make a mark in each one chosen. Then look to see if they are randomly distributed or if there is some degree of clustering. It's a pretty simple way to prove to yourself that taz is right.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 12, 2009 8:58 PM
Assertion:
In a random distribution, given a desired average spacing between points A, there is always a number of points B that will generate an average spacing less than A.
not that I can prove it... Let's ask Dr. Rosenhouse.
Posted by: Kevin (nyc) | June 12, 2009 9:03 PM
Caveat: Computer based random number generators are not really random.
Posted by: rnb | June 12, 2009 9:06 PM
ok wait change that...
what does clustering mean? do it mean that no matter how many points you add, you will always have more points in one area then the next? or does it mean that some areas will never have a point?
I guess if its the former then the claim is true that some spots will always have more points than others....
I know that the ipod actually adjusts the shuffle function to avoid clustering so I guess ...
still don't like it...
Posted by: Kevin (nyc) | June 12, 2009 9:12 PM
Kevin -
I think that's pretty clear. In a finite space you can determine that maximun distance between two points. The average distance between points would be a strictly decreasing function of the number of points. Therefore, for any distance D greater than 0 (and less than the max) there would be some number of points were the average distance would be less than D.Posted by: Taz | June 12, 2009 9:25 PM
Actually, I take that back. A strictly decreasing function can converge on a non-zero number. I think you could devise a distribution in which the average distance between points converged on a non-zero number.
Posted by: Taz | June 12, 2009 9:43 PM
In fact, it's pretty obvious. Every point being the same is a perfectly valid distribution. It's not very likely to be chosen randomly, but it's as likely as any other. In this case the average distance would be constant. (Of course, the fact that points could be the same means I was wrong to say that average distance as a function of the number of points is strictly decreasing, it's merely decreasing.)
(Sometimes I miss my math days.)
Posted by: Taz | June 12, 2009 9:53 PM
The point Taz is trying to make is that a "random" distribution is not the same thing as a "uniform" distribution. People have psychological trouble understanding this intuitively. We tend to see clusters as meaningful non-random things.
Look at constellations, for instance. Subtract the milky way, and the star patters near us are random - yet we see them as meaningful groups. Or just do the grid test and use a couple of d20s for your randomiser. It's nothing to do with computer randmoisers.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | June 12, 2009 10:25 PM
Posted by: Ex-drone | June 12, 2009 11:05 PM
right. and I was trying to argue that done often enough, a random distribution tends to a uniform distribution.
maybe that's not right but I don't see "clustering" when I see a data point every place I look...
cheers!
Posted by: Kevin (nyc) | June 13, 2009 12:16 AM
"Gould, unfortunately, made this too easy to do with his attacks on adaptationism."
Did he "attack" adaptationism or did he just try to modify it a little?
Consider a culture as an analog of genetics in a population. A culture can be seen as a network of interacting memes. A global property of these memes is that they will resist change. This is what makes cultures relatively stable.
One way to change a culture is to isolate a small population from it. This small population can then change in ways that would not be possible if it were still embedded in the larger culture.
Then can the genes in a population form a defensive network that resists change in the same way? If so them most evolution will occur in small populations and will generate new species.
This is not an attack on adaptation or selection. Gould attributed all the creative power of evolution to selection. He only proposed other mechanisms that imposed other patterns on evolution.
Posted by: ppnl | June 13, 2009 12:28 AM
Posted by: Taz | June 13, 2009 12:34 AM
The irony is that in fact all he did succeed in doing was modifying it a little bit. A very little bit.
His argument about "spandrels' was thoroughly vivisected by Daniel Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea." h
He repeatedly claimed that adaptationists were guilty of seeing everything as adaptations, yet he never identified and disproved any adaptation (my favorite example, he points out that the cleft of the chin isn't an adaptation, it's just a point where the jawbones meet--but nobody ever claimed the cleft was an adaptation, and in fact the fusing of the jawbones probably is an adaptation).
His argument for punctuated equilibrium was merely a shift in emphasis, not a radical reformulation as he claimed. One of his critics (I forget who, but maybe was Dawkins) pointed out that whether evolutionary history seems to be more equilibrium or more frequent adaptation depends on how closely you're looking. If you're looking at hundreds of millions of years at a time, you'll see lots of changes going on, but if you look at a few hundred thousand years at a time you'll see mostly equilibrium.
And creationists repeatedly picked up on Gould's criticism of what he called "the adaptationist paradigm" and saw it as an attack on evolution itself. Gould was frustrated by that, and tried to argue against it, but was too committed to attacking Dawkins, Wilson, etc., to effectively undo the damage he did.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 13, 2009 2:37 PM
James Hanley, what damage did Gould do? I found his science essays to be excellent reading. They're a good introduction to Dawkins' stuff.
So maybe his writings provided ammunition to quote-mining Creationists; but given that Creationists lie without compunction, that's hardly a crime.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 13, 2009 3:18 PM
David,
Respectfully, my prior comment explained that.
Most of Gould's essays are excellent, which makes his bad side so inexplicable. And in his desire to attack adaptionist arguments he put himself in bed with creationists. Of course they quote mine, and that's exactly why you should't write in a way that makes it so damned easy for them. Seriously, when you attack adaptation arguments, why shouldn't people think you're attacking evolution? Natural selection is about adaptation to the environment--even genetic drift doesn't escape that because it has to survive selective pressures, and drifts that are maladaptive are likely to be selected agains.
I would note that much of his animosity towards Wilson stemmed from his antipathy towards Wilson's sociobiology arguments. Gould was a committed Marxist, and hated sociobiology's implications. And that's another blow against Gould's integrity--anyone who can study natural selection then reject it when thinking about human nature because it doesn't support his normative values deserves to be flogged.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 13, 2009 5:15 PM
How could the editors and reviewers of the journal let this study publish with such generalized statement about boys and girls and identity of toys!! In most other parts of the world or even in the USA (not among the white middle class), there are families who do not have the exact same child rearing method... by that I mean that boys and girls are not always dressed in pink or blue and the are exposed to gender neutral toys from early age.
Posted by: sikiş | June 13, 2009 5:23 PM
Seriously, when you attack adaptation arguments, why shouldn't people think you're attacking evolution? Natural selection is about adaptation to the environment--even genetic drift doesn't escape that because it has to survive selective pressures, and drifts that are maladaptive are likely to be selected agains.
Posted by: sikişme | June 13, 2009 5:26 PM
Cheers James, I didn't read carefully enough.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 13, 2009 8:56 PM
I just don't see that Punkeq is in any way an attack on adaptationism itself. And you really haven't shown how it is.
Did Gould ever claim that anything other than selection was responsible for the creative power of evolution?
Posted by: ppnl | June 14, 2009 12:26 AM
ppnl,
Gould put a lot of effort into attacking what he called "the adaptationist paradigm." I agree that punctuated equilibrium is not an attack on adaptation, but Gould thought it was because he incorrectly believed that those who focused on adaptation all believed that there was more or less constant change going on in species.
So he wasn't actually attacking the idea that adaptation didn't occur. Rather, he attacked a strawman--the claim of constant adaptive change with no other affective mechanisms whatsoever; a claim those he attacked never made.
And Gould did indeed claim that something other than selection was important in evolution--genetic drift. I grant that most of his opponents were at best dubious about the role of genetic drift, and that Gould has won the day, as that concept is now a standard component of our understanding of natural selection.
But the idea of genetic drift did not completely reinvent the field, as Gould seemed to believe, and, again, his treatment of his collegue E. O. Wilson was despicable.
Gould also, imo, put a lot of importance on the concept of necessity, or perhaps more fairly, constraint. In his famous analogy to the spandrels of San Marcos he claimed that the spandrels in the cathedral weren't an artistic choice, but a necessary, unavoidable, outcome of the decision to have intersecting vaulted roofs. This was, somehow, supposed to indicate that the same necessary constraints were common in natural selection. But Daniel Dennett demonstrated that there are multiple ways to design intersecting vaulted roofs, so that spandrels are in fact a design choice.
To the best of my knowledge, Gould never demonstrated that anything someone else had declared to be an adaptation was either a spandrel or mere genetic drift. So he never demonstrated that they had actually committed errors, yet he continued to abuse them.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 14, 2009 12:38 PM
My god, Hanley, what a scoop!
Stop the presses! Make a new page one:
"Palaeontologists NOT experts in architecture".
And in other news: water discovered to be wet! [rolls eyes] - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 14, 2009 12:53 PM
Dingo, while I appreciate your sarcasm as much as ever, methinks you've missed the point.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 14, 2009 1:30 PM
Mr Hanley -
Oh really? Gee, thanks for pointing that out :)* - DJ
____________________
*Sorry, I missed out on the smiley in post #40. Review, then post.
Posted by: DIngoJack | June 14, 2009 1:44 PM
James Hanley,
"[Gould] incorrectly believed that those who focused on adaptation all believed that there was more or less constant change going on in species."
No not constant. Continuous. Under selection evolution can proceed fast, slow or at any rate in between but the function will vary smoothly and the function will be a continuous function.
Gould argued that evolution often proceeded at one of two rates. Either so slow as to be nearly impossible to observe or so fast that it was instantaneous in the fossil record. Also the change was cladogenic. Think of the out of Africa vs the multiregional views of human evolution for example.
And Gould had a problem with excess reductionism. His view was that biologists were suffering from physics envy in trying to reduce evolution to a response of a population to a fitness landscape. He used history rather than physics as a metaphor for how evolution proceeds. For example we do not usually reduce the "evolution" of the United States to a response of a population to its environment. It is in an ultimate sense but that fact isn't very useful. Instead we see history as a series of historical accidents that could have happened differently.
For example how different would America be today if George Washington had died early in the war? Or if the French fleet had hit a storm and been sunk rather than bottle up the British fleet? The odd details can have a profound effect of what follows. Gould saw evolution as a history story rather than a set of physical principles. Selection is an important component in that story but it does not reduce evolution to physics.
Posted by: ppnl | June 14, 2009 3:25 PM
ppnl,
And what in your more generous characterization of Gould is a sufficient critique of adaptatonist thinking that it would justify a) claiming that he had radically reshaped evolutionary theory, and b) being so abusive to a gentleman and brilliant scholar like Wilson?
It's a refinement of evolutionary theory, not a substantive change. It's true, but often trivially so, because there wasn't really much disputation of it, just a lack of focus that direction. And when a person's object of study is in fact adaptations, it's neither surprising nor shameful that they would not focus on the things Gould did.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 14, 2009 4:44 PM
James Hanley,
a)I have dabbled in programs that model an evolutionary process. My intuition tells me that evolution in a large population should happen faster. After all if you have more individuals producing and processing more mutations in more combination it should cause evolution to proceed faster. If it does not happen that way I would like to know why. That seems fairly important to me.
If a graph of the rate of evolutionary change looks like a horizontal line with a series of high thin spikes that makes a big difference in what a paleontologist looks for in the fossil record. Not only is the "out of Africa" theory likely true but we know that theories like out of Africa are the type of theories that are true. This seems reasonably important.
If evolution happens in cladogenic events then clad selection becomes an important part of evolution. A fairly important thing. It sure makes Dawkins gene selection look different.
b)There is no excuse for being an ass. But being an ass isn't evidence that a theory is incorrect. If we rejected the work of every scientist who made an ass of themselves we would reject a lot of valuable stuff. I understand Galileo was an ass.
I don't know how important Gould's work was. But with the over the top criticism and dislike I see around you would think it was the most important issue in the world. He is dead, chill out. Separate his personality and politics from his science.
I like his view of evolution as a history rather than a set of physical principles. But the thing is it isn't true or false. It is just a way of thinking about evolution. It changes my perspective and thats good.
I hesitate to recommend his book "The structure of Evolutionary Theory". Its not that great as a defense of PE as you can find most of those arguments elsewhere. I found it most useful in its explanation of the history of evolutionary thought. But with 1400 pages it isn't clear if it was worth the time. Still you might find a copy someone is using as a door stop.
Posted by: ppnl | June 15, 2009 11:47 AM